RSSGoogle Chrome, now minus the 'beta' part
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published December 11, 2008, 4:30 PM
Perhaps in response to a wave of blog posts commenting about how many Google products have remained officially in "beta" for so long, its Chrome browser release no longer has that moniker attached.
Despite the fact that Google's browser, now on its 15th official release, will no longer be referred to as the "beta" of the product, a statement attributed to two of the company's engineers indicates that it has not exited the development phase.
"We have removed the beta label as our goals for stability and performance have been met but our work is far from done," reads today's statement from product management VP Sundar Pichai and engineering director Linus Upson. "We are working to add some common browser features such as form autofill and RSS support in the near future."
In addition, support for Linux and Mac platforms is forthcoming, they wrote. As a result, it appears, the company will not be attaching the typical version numbers to the browser.
Because of a stay-resident component that loads into the computer's memory at startup, Chrome effectively keeps itself updated. For users who don't have software-based firewalls such as ZoneAlarm or Comodo installed, this process typically takes place in the background, without notifying the user. With firewalls installed, however, and with rules set to monitor Chrome's use of the system, users are often made aware of the fact that something in the system is pinging Google for a new edition -- in our tests, literally once every hour.
If the Google stay-resident component (which also, incidentally, monitors for new versions of other programs such as Google Toolbar) is removed from the system registry, the Chrome user can still update his product, albeit manually. The About box still offers a build number for the product, although at least for now, that's the only place Google is ever likely to mention it. The most current build as of today is 1.0.154.36, and if you download Chrome from FileForum, that's the one you'll actually get -- Google keeps only the most current version available at all times.
In a now oft-quoted statement from Google last September 24 to Network World's Paul McNamara, the meaning of "beta" is evolving, perhaps becoming less than it was, perhaps more, depending on which side of the proverbial elephant in the room you're standing next to.
"We believe beta has a different meaning when applied to applications on the Web, where people expect continual improvements in a product," the spokesperson stated. "On the Web, you don't have to wait for the next version to be on the shelf or an update to become available. Improvements are rolled out as they're developed. Rather than the packaged, stagnant software of decades past, we're moving to a world of regular updates and constant feature refinement where applications live in the cloud."
Up until today, an estimated 45% of all Google products in use by customers were given the "beta" moniker, including Gmail, a great many Google Apps, Google Video, Google Product Search (formerly Froogle), and Google Blog Search.
Needs a much better way of handling and labeling large number of tabs.
Not yet ready for power use.
Score: 0
|Sorry double posted
Score: 0
|Apparently this is vapor ware only. I have Google Chrome installed and the About dialog says it is 0.4.154.33 - up to date. There is no ability to upgrade to 1.0.
Nice Try Google!
Score: 0
|I'm going to take it removing "beta" more has to do with Google bundling their browser with OEMs than actually any philosophy change.
Score: 0
|I'd hate to say it but I'd actually pick Safari over Chrome. At least Chrome displays tables correctly.
Score: 0
|take note that the chromium nightly builds generated by the buildbot http://build.chromium.or...apshots/chromium-rel-xp/ have been passing acid3 for quite some time now. google chrome's 1.0.154.36 release does not pass.
Score: 0
|At least they finally admitted "beta" was being used incorrectly, however I guess they aren't going to change the other products.
If they see products as constantly evolving they should have come up with a different description than one already used for software not ready for the masses.
I don't like that it puts a program in stay-resident without my knowledge even if it is expressly for updating the system.
Score: 0
|In my mind, beta means not supported by developers. Gold means you get support. Without support, software is fairly useless (in corpland, at least,)
Score: 0
|This "cloud idea" might not be so terrific for Web page designers either. Under this system, what behaves one way today might conceivably behave differently tomorrow.
Score: 0
|The major problem with this whole 'cloud' idea is that updates are pushed when you may not want them.
If there's a UI change then it can cause confusion amongst users as yesterday their program looked different to what it does today. This is almost useless for businesses where users have to be trained.
Score: 0
|Any cloud software worth its salt would allow the admin in control of company to block an update until deemed necessary.
Score: 0
|Paul, there is MUCH more at issue with the cloud concept that that.
Authenticated access, control of device access, encrypted access, what data should even be exposed to the cloud, and so much more that was never adequately addressed in the grid and SAAS models has simply moved to an even larger congealed potential exposure whereby MOST admin control is relenquished to others!
The rush of so many to jump on the bandwagon simply because it has a new name is fascinating, if not irresponsible.
And the silence is deafening in that fundamental questions are not being asked in lieu of the hype that flows not only from manufacturers eager to find a new model to sell, but by fan sites which fail to raise the MYRIAD legitimate concerns that potential users SHOULD be asking!
Score: 0
|Again you assume companies like Google 'care' or have a clue about business infrastructure.
Half the reason MS continues to stomp on Apple and OSS is their business focus the goes from Server technology to robust installation and domain policy features of Windows.
If OS X or a good OSS variant could even implement 25% of the features Windows and MS offer business environments, they might get a chance, instead of seeing IT zealots trying to shove OS X or Linux into a corporation and losing the backbone of business featueres and control that is just expected because of what Windows always gave the corporate market.
PS Hint: Google is a marketing company that makes money from data mining information and selling access by proxy to advertisers.
Chrome only exists because of the 'user' tracking features Firefox refused to implement even with Google's financial support, and Firefox even does limited user reporting to Google via the bookmarks and search integrations.
Score: 0
|